Specifically, the FCC's new rules exempt wireless carriers like Verizon from the ban on throttling internet connections. Verizon is perhaps upset about the provisions that would prevent it from banning certain sites such as 4Chan and the provision which prevents it from charging users fees on a per-site basis, something that communications companies are currently in talks to deploy. Under such a scheme, each site you visited (e.g. DailyTech, Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.) would result in either a separate monthly fee or a separate per-visit fee being added to your account.

Fig 1.: The FCC proposal is unpopular among telecoms, who complain it would prevent a "free market" in which carriers could charge users per-website usage fees. [Source: Fierce Wireless Semina via Wired]

The FCC has filed to dismiss a second lawsuit from Verizon challenging the rules. It has already defeated Verizon once, dismissing the company's first lawsuit challenge.

In a new court filing the FCC's attorneys argue that Verizon has insuffiient jurisdiction to challenge the rules on a statutory basis.

It writes:

"Verizon's theory of jurisdiction is that the FCC modified its radio licenses within [certain statutes] because the Open Internet Order cited the agency's authority to modify licenses, among numerous other statutory bases of authority." Verizon's attempt to appeal the order on a statutory basis, "however, applies only when this Court is asked to review an FCC order that modifies specific individual licenses. It does not apply to review of generally applicable Commission orders that, like the Open Internet Order, regulate a broad group of licensees as a class. ... Verizon's notice of appeal ... should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

The argument is an interesting one. Basically, the FCC is arguing that Verizon's attorneys have misinterpreted the laws which grant it regulatory authority. Specifically it's arguing that the law permits ISPs like Verizon to only sue about individual per-carrier regulatory decisions, rather than broad regulatory edicts, like the net neutrality rules.

If the FCC's "Motion to Dismiss" is approved, Verizon's hopes of fighting the new rules will dwindle, given that it's already lost another case in court. However, it remains to be seen whether the court sides with the FCC's argument about jurisdiction. Verizon does have one thing working in its favor. It's retained Helgi G. Walker, the Washington D.C. attorney who won Comcast Corp.'s (COMCSA) challenge per-company net neutralty enforcement.

Even if it wins this round, the FCC still has more lawsuits to deal with. It is facing a separate suit, which rather than arguing -- like Verizon -- that the rules go to far, argues instead that they don't go far enough, as they exempt wireless carriers from throttling restrictions.

Yeah I guess I'm just stuck. I adamantly am against the FCC taking over the Internet as we know it, which is what happens with every medium they involve themselves in. But I'm totally against content pay schemes such as these as well, obviously, I spent a ton of time on the Internet in general and those sites.

Anyone else just feel kind of depressed sometimes with the tech news? People suing each other over everything, the Government taking over the Internet, ISP's getting with content providers to screw everyone. Bla bla bla...

I cannot convince myself that the FCC is ever the "lesser" of two evils though. It will start at Net Neutrality, sure. And then they will apply their "decency standards" and other crap to the Internet until all web content will be under Government control. Just like they have to every other media format they have ever gotten involved in.

This is the same FCC that drove the highest rated and highest grossing talk show in the history of the planet, Howard Stern, off terrestrial radio. The same FCC that has been banning and fining artistic expression since their inception.

You gotta understand that the Government is highly vested in bringing the Internet "in line", and this seemingly innocent "Net Neutrality" situation is the perfect way to get their foot in the door.

First, though, the FCC will have to come up with a new reason to regulate content on the internet. Howard Stern was regulated under the same premise as OTA TV. It covers any broadcast on free, OTA broadcasts on spectrum allotted exclusively to a single entity. If the consumer pays for access to a network/broadcast, then the FCC doesn't regulate content. So the FCC doesn't regulate content on cable, satellite TV/radio, internet, cellular conversations, etc. Occasionally, these networks are regulated by the provider (see film ratings by the MPAA, cable companies 'regulating' content on non-network channels, etc.).

I think you may be overstating the involvement of the FCC in censorship. Much of the censorship we endure is non-governmental - at least, not the Federal government (to cover myself regarding laws on strip clubs and porn stores). It's social censorship, the kind railed against by Mill in On Liberty. In fact, the government has slowly been chipping away at what can be legally censored.

quote: First, though, the FCC will have to come up with a new reason to regulate content on the internet.

Hell they have all the reason you could ask for. Child porn, "bullying" leading to suicides, perverts meeting teenage girls in hotels room from chat rooms. The list is endless. You think the FCC "needs" to come up with some magical reason? Hell no.

You guys have to get a clue. I respect your position, but you need to understand something. The Government absolutely cannot stand how the Internet isn't under their direct control. Information is power, and there's way too much unregulated information on the 'net. Also there's TONS of commerce on the Internet and the vast majority of it isn't taxable. If you think those aren't two damn good reasons for wanting things to change, I mean come on!

If you think I'm crazy please point out to me all the other mainstream technologies like the Internet that aren't heavily regulated or out-right controlled. Guess what? They don't exist.

quote: I think you may be overstating the involvement of the FCC in censorship.

Ok well that's just ignorant. Do some Google searches, it's all there for you to learn. Sure a lot of it you would say is ancient history, but it DID happen.

As far as Howard Stern goes, they didn't outright ban him, no. They did something far more sinister. They made it impossible for Howard Stern show affiliate stations to renew their FCC license. In other words, in order to remain in business they effectively had to drop the show. Well duh, which one do you think they were gonna pick?

If you or I behaved in this manner, they would call it conspiracy and gangsterism and throw us in jail. But that's the kind of fear and power a faceless entity like the FCC can wield. And people want them regulating the Internet...

pretty sure howard stern was taken off the air because he was on public radio...dont' remember much about it, maybe he pissed off someone in power? a better approach probably would have been to come up with a ratings system like TV-MA but for radio or i dunno

but your view of the government wanting to take everything over and sensor everything is a little perverse in my opinion